Right to photograph Federal Buildings

[al olson]

I think that this article from the Washington Post should be of interest to everyone.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/10/photographers_documentary_film.html?hpid=newswell

Also note the link to

Friday's settlement comes as the National Park Service is also making it easier for small groups to gather at national parks.

I wonder what this means for workshops? Hmmm

[Steve M Hostetter]

I was taking photos of our state capital building at night and I had an officer come up and say hi and asked me about my camera ... Then he said have a good night and left.
steve

[Shen45]

Can this be moved to the Lounge please. American politics is not Large Format photography.

[tbeaman]

Yeah, please do. I'm disappointed those posts got deleted. I love watching people lose their shit over nonsense political ideologies.

As for the subject at hand, I also love stories like this.

[keith english]

It sounds like the ruling on groups in national parks was aimed more at protests and free speech activities, rather than photographers or workshops.

[Jeff Conrad]

The settlement in with the NPS has nothing to do with photographers, though it could be taken as prohibiting requiring a permit for photography that the NPS treat as a "demonstration." (activity intended to or likely to attract a crowd). Such a classification is a bit silly, and some years ago, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals voided a similar law for the US Capitol Grounds; though that case had nothing to do with photography, the law that was voided was apparently the basis for requiring tripod permits. As far as I know, the tripod permit requirement hasn't changed, so as with Mr. Musumeci experience with the FPS, what the law appears to say and what actually happens aren't always the same.

So I don't think this has much to do with us, but I guess every little bit helps.

Legislation that would give a break to small filming crews has been introduced in Congress; it wouldn't affect photographers, and I doubt that anything will come of it in the current session. But it's an idea that seems to have had support for several years, so similar legislation could well be introduced in the next session. If one of the current bills were to pass, fees in some cases could be higher for still photography than for filming involving the same number of people, which makes no sense to me. The proposed changes seem reasonable to me, though I'd like to see the reaction of resource managers. In any event, if either of these bills gains traction, it would seem reasonable to seek at least a similar break for photographers. One approach would be for photographers in the US to contact their elected representatives; an even better approach would be to involve a photographers' organization in the process to ensure that seemingly insignificant changes in wording don't have unintended consequences, as may have happened with Public Law 106-206.

One thing is certain: unless we actively present our case, we're certain to not even be considered. I don't think anyone is out to get us; rather, they're probably unaware that we even exist, as usual.

[tbeaman]

That last point you make is especially important. We should all really keep it in mind.

Care to elaborate further on these proposed laws? I'm too lazy to search, and it would benefit the rest of those reading this.

[Jeff Conrad]

Um, I did elaborate, but the post was deleted ...

I'm waiting for some advice on how (or whether) to proceed from someone who better understands how the inside game is played with such things. If I end up posting something, I'll do it in a new thread because it's really a separate issue that relates to reasonable treatment of photographers rather than a right to photograph. And it doesn't really address Al's question about workshops, which are yet again a slightly different issue.

[reyno bundit]

is it really that bad in the usa today? i like to photograph during vacations, is it against the law to do so now?

[Jeff Conrad]

Reyno, I'm not sure quite to what you refer, but I would say simply that Mr. Musumeci's experience with the FPS was an isolated incident that is hardly representative of what one might ordinarily encounter. Note that he was photographing a protester on federal property, which is a fairly unusual circumstance; moreover, a U.S. District Court held that even there, the actions of the FPS agents were illegal. Having been put on notice, FPS agents in New York or elsewhere who are so foolish as to repeat such behavior could find themselves in trouble.

Though I'd never say never, it's very unusual for photographers to get hassled like this, so I wouldn't let it cramp your style. Take pictures as you have previously enjoyed

[Jeff Conrad]

Legislation: the thinking seems to be that, because nothing is likely to happen in the current session of Congress, we should wait until the next Congress and see if similar legislation is introduced.

The bills to which I referred, S. 1241 and H.R. 2031, would limit fees to $200/day for filming on U.S. public lands by crews of five or fewer people to $200/day. More information about the bills can be obtained at http://thomas.loc.gov.

Though I think the concept is reasonable, the language might need some fine tuning; in particular, I think it ill-advised to lock the fee in statutory law when the fees for all other filming and photography are set by the affected agencies. I'd also like to hear the affected agencies' responses before taking a position.

If indeed this or similar legislation were to proceed, it would seem reasonable to at least ensure that fees for still photography involving the same number of people be no greater than those for filming. I'd also change the conditions under which a permit is required for still photography. Current language requires a permit when the photography involves "models or props," without defining or qualifying either. I would change the wording to require permits only when the photography involves "models or props for the purpose of commercial advertising," the same as the current requirement in National Parks, which was the original intent of the law (Public Law 106-206) that the two bills seek to modify.

The problem with the current wording is that it's conceivable that "models or props" could be read to mean anyone or anything appearing in an image under any circumstances, requiring a permit to photograph one's family, vehicle, or campsite. Although this is just plain nuts, the current wording could leave the requirement to the whims of enforcement personnel. The Forest Service went even further in an agency directive defining "prop" to include any equipment other than a camera and tripod; conceivably, this could require a permit for a handheld lightmeter, handheld or camera-mounted flash, collapsible reflector or diffuser, and so on. Although this may sound crazy, there have been issues with such items in the past; better to get the wording to discourage needless creativity.

There also are a few issues that have arisen from changes in technology: many digital cameras now record video as well as stills, and it would seem absurd to have permit requirements that varied with the recording mode.

So what does what I've discussed have to do with the current bills? Not much, really. But my point is that if changes eventually are made to Public Law 106-206, we should insist, in the interest of fairness, that some of our issues be addressed as well. My sense is that addressing them in separate legislation would be a tall order. Getting every issue addressed might be asking too much; I'd settle for getting "models and props" qualified.

Again, It's very doubtful that anything will happen with either bill in the remainder of the current session, so at this point, there probably is no action to take except to see if similar legislation is introduced in the 112th Congress, and decide what action, if any, is appropriate.

In this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=29010), we discussed in detail a similar situation in the context of a proposed agency rule that would have formally implemented Pub. L. 106-206. As a result of public comment, a final rule was not issued, but a another attempt at a rule will probably be made some time in the future. The timing is anyone's guess, but we should keep an eye out for it as well.

As I said earlier, proposals that might adversely affect us are often made not because those making them are out to get us, but because they're simply unaware that we exist and consequently don't even realize that there is an impact. Unless we comment when such proposals are made, we ensure that we remain invisible.

[Robert Hughes]

What is this talk about "rights" and Federal Buildings? Hah, that's so quaint...

[Jeff Conrad]

Looks like I wasn't paying attention to what I was writing (I did have it right in the post that got deleted ...).

The proposed legislation would reduce the fees for small filming crews from $150/day to $200/year. Fees are zero and no permit is required for still photographers working without models or props, but we need a qualification of "model" and "prop" so that they're applied as originally intended (commercial product shoots). In addition, when fees are required, it makes no sense to charge still photographers more than filmmakers, so if small filming crews can get an annual permit, photographers should be able to do so as well. The proposed legislation seems to imply (but does not clearly state) than an annual permit would be good for any location; another detail to be worked out if similar bills appear in the next Congress.